目的:总结关于富血小板血浆(PRP)凝胶和白细胞和富血小板纤维蛋白(L-PRF)凝胶作为促进溃疡愈合的药物与单独的标准伤口敷料技术相比的有效性的证据。
方法:系统评价。
方法:针对所有类型皮肤溃疡(不包括创伤性病变)的个体患者随机对照试验。干预组:对创面表面局部应用L-PRF凝胶或PRP凝胶治疗。
方法:使用生理盐水进行标准皮肤溃疡护理,normgel或水凝胶敷料。
方法:Medline(Ovid),摘录医学数据库(EMBASE),Scopus,护理和相关健康文献的累积指数(CINAHL)和WebofScience,并从以前的系统评价和荟萃分析中手动搜索研究。包括1946年至2022年发表的论文,对地理和语言没有任何限制。搜索的最后日期是2022年8月29日。
方法:独立审核员确定了符合条件的研究,提取的数据,使用Cochrane用于随机试验工具的偏见风险工具V.2评估偏见风险,并使用建议评估等级评估评估证据的确定性,发展,和评估(等级)方法。
方法:完成愈合的时间,在给定时间和愈合速度下愈合的比例。
结果:七项研究符合纳入标准,五个使用PRP凝胶和两个使用L-PRF凝胶。一项研究表明,完全愈合的比例更高,在干预组中,有3例报告称达到完全愈合的时间减少,5例显示单位时间的愈合率提高.所有研究的偏倚风险都很高,只有一个例外,GRADE显示证据的确定性非常低。
结论:研究结果表明,干预有可能获得更好的结果;然而,证据仍然没有定论,突出了溃疡治疗方面的巨大研究空白,需要更好设计的临床试验.
■CRD42022352418。
To summarise evidence on the effectiveness of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) gel and Leucocyte and Platelet Rich Fibrin (L-PRF) gel as agents promoting ulcer healing compared with the standard wound dressing techniques alone.
Systematic review.
Individual patient randomised controlled trials on skin ulcers of all types excluding traumatic lesions.Intervention group: treatment with topical application of L-PRF gel or PRP gel to the wound surface.
treatment with standard skin ulcer care using normal saline, normgel or hydrogel dressings.
Medline (Ovid), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Web of Science and manual search of studies from previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The papers published from 1946 to 2022 with no restriction on geography and language were included. The last date of the search was performed on 29 August 2022.
Independent reviewers identified eligible studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using V.2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials tool and assessed certainty of evidence by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
Time to complete healing, proportion healed at a given time and rate of healing.
Seven studies met the inclusion criteria, five using PRP gel and two using L-PRF gel. One study showed a better proportion of complete healing, three reported reduced meantime to complete healing and five showed improved rate of healing per unit of time in the intervention group. The risk of bias was high across all studies with one exception and the GRADE showed very low certainty of evidence.
The findings show potential for better outcomes in the intervention; however, the evidence remains inconclusive highlighting a large research gap in ulcer treatment and warrant better-designed clinical trials.
CRD42022352418.